6-year-old boy dies after being shot during road rage incident

The unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you want to lay on the right to keep and bear arms are not only not OK, they, by virtue of being unnecessary and ineffective, violate the constitution.
Why do you hate the Constitution?

 

Kinda makes you wonder if situational standards are the call of the day... oh wait, he's already proven that.

 

Who are you to force your version of morality on others?
What if people won't comply?

 

Let us know when you amendme the constitution.

Ah. You're ignorant of how Constitutional Law works.
No real surprise.
Hint: Not every restriction on a right violates the Constitution - just those for which the necessity and efficacy cannot be demonstrated.
Like those you seek to ;ay on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

And don't expect us to stop fighting for same.
And we have guns. As intended.

 

I wonder exactly who "we" includes. "Others" is concerning as well. There's just something about lumping individuals into groups that should always raise alarm bells...

 

His posts do seem to be talking-point driven - long on slogan, but no ability to detail.

 

Morality so good, it must be mandatory!!

 

If that were the case people that people that have a wide array of reloading dies would make a fortune

 

Original.
Clever.
Yawn.

 

Maybe he's got a point. I'm pretty sure there's a passage about that in the religious texts. When has that ever gone sideways?

 

Who says they won't? And good for them if they do.

 

Only because some people don't hold the correct interpretation of those texts.
We must make sure they do.

 

Clearly they have the wrong texts. Must make the others illegal. If you can't read it, you can't think it, right?

 

Right. No reason for people to have such dangerous things.

 

To bad all these people don't have an open mind about being controlled for thier own good.

 

How does disarming law abiding citizens help? How can you force a mindset?

Your question presupposes I suggest we do nothing. That is not my position. I would focus attention on violent people and never allow the government to infringe on the rights of good people. Knowing I cannot convince a 200 pound rapist not to victimize a 98 pound female, I support her right to defend herself and forcing her to roll over is far from acceptable.

 

No, I didn't mean you at all. It's just the nature of these only half-civil debates over an issue that is resulting in thousands of unneccessary deaths per year in the USA.

 

What's the appropriate metric used to measure wether or not a death is necessary?

 

Ok, that was an interesting question, but also one designed to trip up a person rather than being posed in good-faith. However, since I have absolutely no trust of Conservatives and don't expect them to act in good-faith, anyway, I will answer your silly question.

The answer is that there is no such thing as a "necessary" death. The word "unecessary", in this case (and btw, this is something that informed adults already know, nöööö) is merely another way of saying that those deaths should never have happened in the first place, at least in a morally sane timeline.

So, you can either try to engage in honest and informative debate or you can play the gotcha-game. I really could't give a flying **** what you do because as I already noted, I don't expect Conservatives to act in good-faith, anyway.

So, carry on.

 

I have to say that it's rather interesting that being against granting the government broad authority to impose social moral values characterizes me as conservative. If I embraced the idea that I and everyone else needs to be controlled by a central authority what would that make me, in your view?

You've not answered the question. You've just reworded the assertion. How do you make a distinction between deaths that should never happened and other causes of death?

I'm not playing gotcha. I'm looking for some sort of evidence that you can articulate exactly what it is that gives you the idea that you can make these distinctions between events that happened and how things would have played out differently if your ideas are embraced. So far, your assertions are based in a fantasy of how things could be. You've claimed there's some sort of policy that could have prevented the death of someone that shouldn't have died. How do you know?

Your statement reminds me of a caricature of Thanos. Do you think that if you had the power to control people in the way you suggest that it would be necessarily a good thing?

If I supported your attempts to control my behavior would that make me...liberal?

 

What I'm honestly looking for is a valid opportunity cost analysis. Do you believe that the government is charged with the power to avoid all avoidable death?

For every action, behavior, there is a risk of adverse outcome, and a potential for beneficial outcome. When that mother strapped her kid in the car she accepted the risk that he might die in a car accident. This is despite the fact that his statistical risk of dying in a crash is much higher than his risk of being hit by gunfire from an irate motorist. Putting a six year old in a car is an acceptable risk because of the great potential for beneficial outcome. Are child motor vehicle deaths avoidable? Yes, but at what cost? At what point does that cost erase the benefit? How does the erasure of that benefit effect the lives of the people who had access to that benefit? Clearly there's some analysis that takes place which deems the amount of risk associated with a child in a car is acceptable.

We would both agree that shooting a kid in a fit of road rage is not acceptable. But there's been little evidence offered that would link the restriction of guns to a reduction in avoidable death. Do you believe it is impossible that greater restrictions on guns could produce higher rates of avoidable death?

 

Think of the FDA's job. They are in control of the access to life saving drugs. The approval process can take years. If a life saving drug makes it through approval, what's the responsibility the government has to the people who died during the duration of that approval process? Could those deaths have been avoided, or were those deaths acceptable due to the risk associated with a new drug? How about a life saving drug that is wrongly denied? Does that ever happen?

The government is just not the group you want in charge of avoiding avoidable death. All they can do is choose which risks of avoidable death are good and which ones aren't. You might easily find yourself on the wrong side of that choice and then what are you going to do? Console yourself that your avoidable death was for the good of society?

 

I saw this this morning. The girls are not dead but the article addresses disparity in health care.

 

Yikes. I wonder how this news fits into Rexxon's standard of violence avoidance. Do you think she is to blame? God I hope she doesn't think so.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxnews.com/us/boy-shot-dead-road-rage-incident.amp